Much talked news of business
man S. Ravi’ tweet
and filing of a complaint by Sh. Kriti Chidambaram, son of Union finance minister P Chidambaram has brought section 66A of IT Act, 2000 in lime light.
Reading section 66A carefully, however raises
some doubt as to whether it would apply to ‘Publication” or “Posting”.
Section 66A reads as under:
66A. Punishment for sending offensive
messages through communication service, etc..- Any
person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication
device,-
(a) any information
that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information
which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation,
enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer
resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail
or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or
inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about
the origin of such messages
shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms "Electronic
mail" and "Electronic Mail Message" means a message or
information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system,
computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image,
audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the
message.
Now please note the following points:
(i) It uses the word “sends” and not “Publishes” or “Posts”
(ii) Sub-clauses (c) uses the words “addressee” or “recipient”
(iii) Anyone can differentiate between the meanings of
two words “sending” and “publication” or “posting”.
(iv) If intention of legislature was to include “publication”
or “posting”, it would be clearly added the same in the provision.
(v) If you read section 67, 67A and 67B of IT Act it
clearly uses the word “publication”, however section 66A uses the word “sending”.
If legislature was intended to include “publication” or posting within the
ambit of section 66A, it would have clearly stated so by inserting the above
words in section 66A itself or by having a separate provision.
(vi) If one reads sub-clauses (a) and (b) co-jointly
it reads like this:
“Any person who sends by means of a computer
source or a communication device (a) information that is………….., (b) information
which he knows……..
If
you read initial one line along with sub-clause (c) its reads like this:
Any person who sends by means of a computer
source or a communication device (c) any
electronic mail or electronic mail message………
So what does it convey?
(v) If one read entire section briefly.
It reads like this:
“Any person who sends by means of a computer
source or a communication device (i) information of the character defined in
sub-clauses (a) and (b); and (ii) any electronic mail or electronic mail message defined in
sub-clause (c).
(vii) There is already provision in section 499 in Indian Penal Code, 1860 which talks about publication
of any imputation concerning any person. So legislature must have been wise not
to include the word publication in section 66A.
(viii) Further
by reading the entire clause it gives the impression that aggrieved person is
the recipient/addressee of such message/mail.
(ix) Section 66A is equivalent
to provision of section 20 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which talks about the
transmission of indecent or obscene material etc. and emphasis is on
transmission.